Just ignore Horacid, his entire point is to cause disruption on the thread so that we go off on a tangent. He's just a nobody trying to live through
our president, that's why he takes it so personally.
Originally posted by BeefotronX
Let me explain this 'liberal elitism' thing.
There are two ways to look at responsibility.
One way is that it belongs to the individual, and the other is that it belongs to the collective. For the individualists each person is his own boss, but for the collectivists those who don't like responsibilty give it up to those who don't mind telling other people what to do. The people who think they are wise enough to guide the masses are the elitists.
Originally posted by Bout Time
SO in this convuluted opinon that takes in the general definition of elitism & reworks it into a diatibe against the concept of libralism,
This "rugged individualist" who you admire & believe is a worthy president has never taken responsibility for anything in his life!!
Is there someone who's resigned over pushing false data & blown out of proportion threat assesments over Iraq?
How about someone being outed for teason in the Val Plame case? No........so our GOP government is run by "collectivists" then?
Not only that, but you've determined things to be of the "Witch Hunt" variety in this "Talon News" debacle. How so? They've already been fully vetted as a GOP front.
The reporter was fake regardless of the name he used. He was a prop, a go to guy, as the transcripts prove, to deflect valid criticisms & questions from being answered in an open forum where they could be reported. It was also a silencer of valid reporting. ALL OF THAT was a willful choice by the White House, as was the paying of other reporters to mislead the Nation.So, if I ask the White House "Why did President Bush lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?" that's a legitimate question, but "How are you going to manage with the Democrats opposing your every move just for the sake of being contrary for the next four years?", that's a softball to deflect from the previous question. I get it now.
Ah... 'fake but accurate', with some fallacious digs on Iraq tacked on the end.
Now the Dan Rather thing will be cited by Republicans until they're called out on the fact of the eyewitness testimony:
In retrospect...
Originally posted by Nerdling
****UPDATE****
John Aravosis over at www.americablog.org... seems to have stumbled onto an important story.